Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Kamal 2020 IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 732 012012
Kamal 2020 IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 732 012012
R F Kamal*and R Gunadi
Department of Civil Engineering, Politeknik Negeri Bandung, Bandung 40012,
Indonesia
*rfadlik1@gmail.com
Abstract. Bridges in Indonesia, which built before the last standard SNI 2833:2016 was issued,
need to be reviewed to ensure the safety against earthquakes. This study employs non-linear time
history analysis as method to analyze and evaluate the bridge structure due to earthquake loads.
The structure undergoes a test with earthquake loads from seven records of scaled acceleration
ground motion. From the analysis result, scale adjustment of seven earthquakes records towards
the target spectrum response demonstrates various effects on plastic joints scheme and
earthquake damage values. The evaluation result based on Cisomang highway/toll-bridge
analysis denotes that Response modification factor value (R) is within the limit of permitted
value of SNI 2833:2016 standard.
1. Introduction
Indonesia is within the area with medium to high earthquake intensity that requires bridges establishment
to meet the current standard bridges planning towards earthquake load of SNI 2833:2016. Bridges in
Indonesia, especially those that built before SNI 2833: 2016 authorized in 2016, need to be reviewed so
that safety and management of its structure can be ensured. Changes in the regulation occur to correct
flaws in the previous regulation, including updates to the earthquake region map based on the facts of
large-scale earthquakes in Indonesia.
2. Literature review
SNI 2833: 2016 states that the planned earthquake force in a lower structure, and the relationship
between structural elements is determined by dividing the elastic earthquake force with modification
factor (R). As an alternative of the R factor utilization for structural relationships, monolithic
connections between structural elements, such as the columns relationship to the palm foundation, can
be planned to receive the maximum force due to the columns plasticity or the connected columns. In
dynamic time history analysis, the response modification factor (R) is taken at 1 for all types of sub-
structures and the relationship between structural elements [1,2].
The maximum load due to the effect of the planned earthquake which can be absorbed by the elastic
building structure (Ve) and the load that caused by the first melting process in the ductile building
structure and elastic building structure due to the effect of the planned earthquake (V y), then the
following relationship applies:
(1)
Content from this work may be used under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 licence. Any further distribution
of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the title of the work, journal citation and DOI.
Published under licence by IOP Publishing Ltd 1
The 1st Annual Technology, Applied Science and Engineering Conference IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 732 (2020) 012012 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/732/1/012012
(2)
The overloading factor and the material contained in the building structure (f1) set at 1.6 value.
3. Methodology
This research study will discuss the analysis and evaluation of Cisomang toll-bridge performance
towards earthquake loads based on SNI 2833: 2016 standard. The analysis and evaluation will be
conducted utilizing the non-linear time history analysis method.
The bridge structure will be tested with seven earthquake records which have convergent
characteristics to the spectrum response area and soil type around Cisomang toll-bridge. This earthquake
record has occurred elsewhere. Before adjusting the records, the scale will be customized to the spectrum
response of Cisomang toll-bridge location.
The object of the bridge structure that is being analyzed and evaluated for its performance is P4
Cisomang toll bridge frame, which is the highest frame among the other frames. This frame also bears
the longest span of inter-pillar loads. The aim of this analysis is to obtain the shear force, deformation,
yielding point, plastic hinge scheme, and response modification factors. The object of this shown in
Figure 2.
Figure 2. Frame P4 of Cisomang toll-bridge (source: PT. Jasa Marga Cabang Purbaleunyi).
2
The 1st Annual Technology, Applied Science and Engineering Conference IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 732 (2020) 012012 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/732/1/012012
4.3. Loading
The gravity loads included in the non-linear time history analysis are dead load and life load [2].
Cisomang toll bridge is considered as a critical type of bridge, so the living load that runs during an
earthquake is multiplied by a reduction factor of 0.50. The pillar and pier head weight is calculated
automatically by SAP2000 software.
PCI girder self-weight is distributed to eight points on the bridge pier head, where each point
holds 804.48 kN. The loading scheme shown in Figure 3 (a).
The self-weight of the floor slab and RC plank is distributed to eight points on the bridge pier
head, where each point holds 949.97 kN. The loading scheme shown in Figure 3 (b).
The self-weight of diaphragm is distributed to each edge of the lane which holds 36.36 kN and
at each midpoint of the lane which holds 72.72 kN. The loading scheme shown in Figure 3 (c).
The self-weight barrier which distributed at each end of the pier head is 415.20 kN. The median
weight distributed at the center of the pier head is 830.40 kN. The loading scheme shown in
Figures 3 (d) and 3 (e).
Additional dead load such as the weight of asphalt layer distributed to each point which holds
129.83 kN. The loading schematic can be seen in Figure 3 (f).
The traffic load utilized in this loading calculation are:
The weight of the evenly distributed load (BTR) at each point by 697.15 kN. The loading
schematic can be seen in Figure 3 (g).
The weight of the centralized line load (BGT) at each point by 137.21 kN. The loading
schematic can be seen in Figure 3 (h).
3
The 1st Annual Technology, Applied Science and Engineering Conference IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 732 (2020) 012012 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/732/1/012012
4
The 1st Annual Technology, Applied Science and Engineering Conference IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 732 (2020) 012012 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/732/1/012012
Figure 5. Acceleration ground motion original and acceleration ground motion match.
Figure 6. Acceleration ground motion original and acceleration ground motion match.
The yield forces and the related displacements as results of the analysis using seven ground motion data
are shown in the following table 1.
Table 1. The results of plate load test.
No. Earthquake Vy (kN) y (mm)
1 Imperial Valley 3411.57 110.86
2 Superstition Hills 3387.76 111.10
3 Loma Prieta 3420.51 110.75
4 Erzincan Turkey 3453.94 111.27
5 Northridge 3447.71 112.43
6 Kobe Japan 3488.39 111.87
7 Duzce Turkey 3425.19 110.95
5
The 1st Annual Technology, Applied Science and Engineering Conference IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 732 (2020) 012012 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/732/1/012012
Bridge elastic base shear (Ve), calculated by the static earthquake method using the response
modification factor value (R) =1.0 is as follows.
Ve = (C . I . Wt) /R
= (0, 1516 . 1,05 . 31719,94)/ 1
= 5048,99 kN
The base shear Ve is distributed into two pier - pier head joints.
Displacement due to elastic shear force (e) is of 166.37 mm.
Response modification factor (R) is calculated using the equation R = (V e / Vy). f1. where the
over strength factor (f1) related to the material and structural system is of 1.6.
Table 2. Comparison of the response modification factor (R) value.
No. Earthhquake Vy (kN) Ve (kN) f1 R
1 Imperial Valley 3411.57 2.37
2 Superstition Hills 3387.76 2.38
3 Loma Prieta 3420.51 2.36
4 Erzincan Turkey 3453.94 5048.99 1.6 2.34
5 Northridge 3447.71 2.34
6 Kobe Japan 3488.39 2.32
7 Duzce Turkey 3425.19 2.36
Figure 7. Base shear diagram - deformation due to the imperial valley earthquake.
5. Conclusion
The non-linear time history analysis which was conducted using seven ground motion data shows that
the Response Modification Factor (R) of Cisomang Bridge ranges from 2.3 up to 2.38. According to
SNI 2833:2016, the minimum value of the Response Modification Factor is 1.5. It means that Response
Modification Factor of Cisomang Bridge is within the limitation.
Acknowledgment
The Author would like to express a gratitude to the State Polytechnic of Bandung (Politeknik Negeri
Bandung) for their support and funds in this research publication. A thanks also expressed to the
department of civil engineering, Parahyangan Chatolic University (Universitas Katolik Parahyangan)
Bandung for their authorization to allow the usage of SAP2000 software in this study.
6
The 1st Annual Technology, Applied Science and Engineering Conference IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 732 (2020) 012012 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/732/1/012012
References
[1] SNI 2833 2016 Perencanaan Jembatan terhadap Beban Gempa, Badan Standarisasi Nasional
[2] SNI 1725 2016 Pembebanan untuk Jembatan, Badan Standarisasi Nasional
[3] SNI 03-1726-2003 Tata Cara Perencanaan Ketahanan Gempa untuk Bangunan Gedung, Badan
Penelitian dan Pengembangan Teknologi Pemukiman
[4] Kalkan E and Chopra A K 2010 Practical Guidelines to Select and Scale Earthquake Records for
Nonlinear Response History Analysis of Structures
[5] Graizer V and Kalkan E 2009 Prediction of response spectral acceleration ordinates based on
PGA attenuation Earthquake Spectra 25(1) 39-69
[6] Chopra A K 2001 Dynamics of Structures: Theory and Applications to Eq. Eng., 2nd Ed., Prentice
Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J
[7] American Society of Civil Engineers 2005, ASCE 7-05 Minimum Design Loads for Buildings,
Reston, VA.
[8] International Conference of Building Officials 2006 International Building Code (Whittier,CA)
[9] International Conference of Building Officials 2007 California Building Code (Whittier, CA.)
[10] Pasific Earthquake Engineering Research Center 2019 PEER Ground Motion Database [Online]
Available at: http://peer.berkeley.edu/.